Economic solution to the spam problem

ABSTRACT

An economic-based solution is provided for regulating electronic messages (commonly referred to as spam). Analogous to a standard bond mechanism, delivering email to an inbox requires an unknown sender to place a small pledge into escrow with a third party. If the recipient expects further communication with a particular sender, they can add the sender to a list of approved senders which will allow the sender&#39;s messages to be delivered to the recipient. An innovative method for managing this list of approved senders is described in the present application. A technique for soliciting electronic messages using the underlying principles of the bond mechanism is also sent forth in the application.

This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S.Provisional Application No. 60/533,235 filed on Dec. 30, 2003, andentitled “An Economic Solution to the Spam Problem” the specificationand drawings of which are hereby expressly incorporated by reference.

FIELD OF INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to electronic junk mail (alsoreferred to as spam) and, more particularly, to an economic mechanismfor regulating electronic junk mail.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Due to its low cost, speed, and freedom from geographical constraints,email has become a ubiquitous and arguably essential means ofcommunication. Unfortunately, the same properties that make it souseful, combined with its openness and trusting design, enableunscrupulous marketers to broadcast email to untargeted audiences. Theresult is unnecessary and unwarranted costs for recipients.

Recent estimates indicate more than 50% of email is now spam, the volumeof spam is growing rapidly, and worldwide costs exceed $20 billionannually. This enormous quantity of unwanted communications has reducedthe signal to noise ratio of email to such an extent that it has becomean issue of national importance.

Legislative and technological solutions continue to be the primary meanspursued to stop or limit spam. No fewer than eight bills are pendingbefore Congress, and more than half the states have enacted laws toregulate email. At the same time, the technology industry is rushing toprovide products and services that give individuals and organizationsback some control over their mailboxes. In 2002, at least $54.4 millionwas invested in anti-spam startups, up 65% from the previous year.

Pure technological and regulatory approaches limit unwantedcommunications by blocking or banning them. This goes against aprinciple of textbook economics: in terms of individual and aggregatesocial welfare, a system that facilitates valuable exchange willgenerally dominate a system that grants universal veto power to eitherpower. An improvement in exchange follows from mechanism design and theprinciples of information asymmetry. The primary assumption is that thesender composing an email message has a better understanding of itsrelative value than does the recipient prior to reading it. This privateinformation favors the sender. Therefore, a screening mechanism has beenproposed that allows recipients to discriminate between classes of highand low quality senders or conversely a signaling mechanism that allowshigh quality senders to rise above the noise.

Analogous to a standard bond mechanism, delivering email to an inboxrequires an unknown sender to place a small pledge into escrow with athird party. In the case of screening, recipients determine the value ofthis fee, which they can dynamically adjust to their opportunity costs.After the fee is placed into escrow, the email is delivered. When therecipient opens the email, they may act solely at their discretion toseize the pledge. Taking no action releases the escrow. This mechanismis most appropriate for situations where recipients have nopre-established relationships with the sender. If a recipient expectsfurther communication with a particular sender, they can add the senderto a whitelist which will allow sender messages to pass through thescreen unencumbered.

The present invention extends this electronic message system in tworespects. First, an innovative method is proposed for managing thewhitelist used by electronic message system. Second, an additionalmethod is also proposed for soliciting electronic messages by asolicitor.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with the present invention, an innovative method isprovided for managing a list of approved senders in an electronicmessage system. The method is comprised of: maintaining a list ofapproved senders associated with a recipient; receiving an electronicmessage intended for the recipient, where the electronic messagereferences a sender residing on the list of approved senders and apotential sender whom is not on the list of approved senders; andplacing the potential sender on the list of approved senders associatedwith the recipient.

In another aspect of the present invention, a method is provided forsoliciting electronic messages by a solicitor. The method is comprisedof: posting a request for electronic messages with an escrow agent,where the message request specifies a topic of interest to the recipientand includes a bond for payment to at least one sender of an electronicmessage sent in response to the message request; sending at least oneelectronic message from a sender to the recipient in response to themessage request; and releasing the bond from the escrow agent to thesender subsequent to the receipt of the electronic message by therecipient.

Further areas of applicability of the present invention will becomeapparent from the detailed description provided hereinafter. It shouldbe understood that the detailed description and specific examples, whileindicating the preferred embodiment of the invention, are intended forpurposes of illustration only and are not intended to limit the scope ofthe invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a diagram of an economic-based bond mechanism for regulatingelectronic messages;

FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating a method for managing a list ofapproved senders in accordance with one aspect of the present invention;and

FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating how the bond mechanism may be used tosolicit electronic messages in accordance with another aspect of thepresent invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

By way of background, an exemplary economic bond mechanism is describedfor regulating electronic junk mail. While the following description isprovided with reference to email messages, it is readily understood thatthe concepts of the present invention are applicable to other types ofelectronic communications, including but not limited to telephone calls,voice messaging, instant messaging and short message services.

First, a few pertinent definitions are set forth. A sender is a person,machine, or entity that may take action to cause a message to betransmitted to a recipient. A recipient is the target party (person,machine, or entity) specified in the envelope, and the intended endpointof a message transmission. A sender server is one or more agents(typically machines), acting in behalf of a sender (under administrativecontrol of the sender), that the sender makes use of to send messages.Similarly, a recipient server is one or more agents (typicallymachines), acting in behalf of a recipient (under administrative controlof the recipient), that the recipient makes use of to receive messages.

A bond is a binding agreement (and the record thereof) to pay aspecified party under specified conditions. An escrow service is acompany, person, or entity that acts as custodian for a posted bond. Theescrow service may release the bond or the funds specified in the bondto various parties under specified conditions. An escrow server is acollection of one or more agents (typically machines) underadministrative control of the escrow service, that facilitates postingof a bond and verification of bond status for sender and receiver (andpotentially other parties).

Referring to FIG. 1, the economic mechanism 10 is defined by a set ofparties, a sequence of messages that may be exchanged between theparties, and the actions that may occur as a result from their exchange.Aside from exchanging information, the mechanism enables funds to betransferred between parties under certain conditions. The following is adescription of the sequence of messages and activities in one possibleconfiguration of the economic bond mechanism.

The sender 12 initiates delivery of a message by providing the messageand its envelope to the sender server 13 as diagrammatically shown at21. If the sender 12 knows in advance that a message might be blockedand an escrow fee demanded, he can include an authorization of payment,up to some maximum amount, which can be acted upon by their senderserver. Alternatively, a means could be implemented which allows thesender 12 to provide a rule to the sender server 13 to be used toevaluate a demand for bond message, if received, to allow it to actwithout intervention. Such a rule might, in effect, state the following:“Should a demand for bond message be received from a recipient server towhich I (the sender) have sent a message within the last two days, posta bond of the requested size only if the requested size is less than$1.00; otherwise, do not post bond, but instead forward the demand forbond message to me”.

Using the envelope accompanying the message, the sender server 13contacts the recipient server 15 and attempts to deliver the envelopeand message as shown at 14. The recipient server 15 checks a set ofrules (specified in advance by the recipient 14) to determine if themessage from the sender 12 is authorized. In the case that the messageis authorized, several steps may be skipped. The message can beimmediately delivered to the recipient 14 as shown at 26.

A whitelist serves as one exemplary authorizing step. A whitelist is alist of pre-authorized sender identities, as set by the recipient and/ortheir institution, from which email will pass through the serversoftware and into the recipient mailbox. Strong identities may be neededto prevent spoofing. Use of cryptographic identities (e.g., public keys)represent a suitable technology which may be incorporated into thepresent invention. Although a certifying authority is not necessary forindividual recipient and sender identities (for example, this approachis used with ‘Secure Shell’, in common use today for remoteadministration and access to server computers), it may be desirable forcertain applications.

Aside from using a certificate of proof that a bond is posted as thecriteria for allowing an email from a non-whitelisted sender to passthrough to the recipient, it is envisioned that the sender can furnishother information to certify their identity. For example, the sender mayenter additional information via a web page. The recipient server hoststhis web page (or it is hosted by another party or server with which therecipient server has a relationship of trust). The challenge email sentback to the sender by the recipient server upon receipt of anon-whitelisted message contains the bond size, amount, and escrowaccount information, as necessary for the bond mechanism. However, toremove the requirement of bond posting, it can also include a URLdescribing the location of the challenge web page. Should a human senderchoose not to post the bond, they have the option of visiting therecipient server-hosted web page and providing other evidence ofauthorization (determined in advance by the recipient), such as apassword, or evidence of the sender having a previously establishedrelationship with the recipient (such as indicating their birthday, realname, place of work, address, or a security code or password, given tothem by the recipient).

In the case where the email is not authorized, the recipient server 15keeps a copy of the message but does not deliver it to the recipient 14.Next, recipient server 15 attempts to deliver a message to the sender 12containing a demand for a bond at 23 a. The demand message includesinformation identifying and specifying how to contact the recipient'sescrow service, the escrow account number of the recipient, the size ofa required bond, and a means of identifying the original message that isheld undelivered on the recipient server 15. To minimize the requirementfor recipient intervention, the recipient sets the size of the bonddemanded for unauthorized messages in advance (given as a preference orrule to the recipient server). Since the recipient 14 has control overthe demanded amount, and this is the means of screening, adjusting thesize of the bond amounts to adjusting the size of their screen. Therecipient 14 can adjust according to their individual preferences.

The sender server 13 receives the bond demand message, and it may thentake several actions, depending upon how it has been instructed (inadvance) by the sender 12. First, it may forward a copy of the demandmessage back to the sender 12, as indicated at step 23 b. The purpose ofthis is to alert the sender 12 that the original message to therecipient 14 requires a bond and is being held, undelivered. If thesender server 13 does not have the instructions or capability toautomatically trigger posting of the bond, the sender 12 can do somanually by contacting the escrow server 16 at the location specified inthe demand message indicated by step 24 b.

It is at this step that the sender 12 may choose to signal. Byauthorizing the posting of a bond greater than the minimum bond sizespecified by the recipient 14, the sender 12 can signal their goodintentions and message quality to the recipient 14, who will be able toassess the size of the bond upon delivery. If authorized and configuredin advance, the sender server 13 may contact the escrow server 16directly (indicated at 24 a) and authorize the posting of the bond. Thesender server 13 can then notify the sender 12 it has taken action.

When the escrow server 16 receives the authorization from the sender (orsender server), the escrow server 16 checks the sender's account to seethat the sender 12 has enough funds to cover the bond. If so, the bondis posted, as specified, to an escrow account controlled by therecipient 14. If not, the sender 12 is notified that they must increasethe funds in their account. Assuming the sender account has the funds tocover the requested bond and the bond is posted to the recipientaccount, the escrow server 16 sends a message to the recipient server atstep 25. This message includes authentication of the escrow server 26,the identity of the original message (held by the recipient server), andan indication that the bond is posted.

It is envisioned that the third-party escrow service or services (e.g.,one for the sender and one for the recipient) will have a record ofbonds posted and claimed between parties, and therefore can, ifauthorized by the parties of the transaction, release this informationto other parties. For example, if a recipient always keeps the bondposted by a sender to allow the delivery of email concerning productsfor sail boats, this could be a useful signal in the marketplace thatthe recipient is not interested in sailboat products. In this example,other sailboat marketers could use this knowledge to avoid posting bondsand/or sending email to this recipient, thereby reducing their marketingcosts.

Once the recipient server 15 receives the notification from the escrowserver 16, it releases the identified message it has been holding. Atthis point, the message is forwarded to the recipient, indicated in step26. Given the different needs and preferences of people or entitiesmaking use of the proposed mechanism and a competitive marketplace, itis likely that several specialized escrow services will emerge. Thenetwork effects of the present invention are significant. Should theescrow services fail to interoperate, it will slow adoption and preventthe economies of scale for low cost transactions. Worse, like in theearly days of the telephone, users would be required to maintain severalrelationships, one with each escrow service that their target recipientsuse. To address this issue, it is envisioned that an inter-escrowservice payment network be deployed and a suitable set of protocolsestablished.

In step 27, the recipient 14 receives the message. If the message is onethat required the sender 12 to post a bond it, includes an indication ofthe bond size (attached to the message by the recipient server) alongwith an identifier for the bond held in escrow at the escrow service.The recipient 14 may choose whether or not they wish to seize the bond.If they wish to seize the bond, they notify the escrow service, whichthen places the bond funds held in escrow into their account. Therecipient 14 may also decide to release the bond rather than keeping it.They may do this passively, by not actively indicating that they wantthe bond to be kept, or they may do it actively, by expressly notifyingthe escrow service. The latter approach causes the bond to return to thesender's account faster than the former.

In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, the economicbond mechanism contemplates the use of “letters of reference” that allowpeople to temporarily be placed on a recipient's whitelist. For example,if someone on your whitelist that you trust sends you an email andcopies a third party, that third party can gain a temporary entry ontoyour whitelist which would allow them to communicate with you for atleast a defined period of time. This would function as a letter ofreference from a trusted third party. However, as noted above, thisconcept extends beyond email to other types of electroniccommunications.

FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary method for managing a list of approvedsender's (also referred to as a whitelist) in accordance with thisprinciple. This method presumes a list of approved senders is beingmaintained by a recipient directly or by an agent of the recipient'schoice (to which the recipient has delegated this function) as shown at32.

Upon receiving an electronic message from an approved sender, therecipient server may review the message at step 34 for references toother potential senders whom are not currently on the list of approvedsenders. For example, a potential sender may be copied on the electronicmessage. In another example, the potential sender may be identified inthe body of the message. In this example, an automated mechanism mayparse the text of the message in order to identify references topotential senders. In the context of a voice message, knownspeech-to-text algorithms may be used to convert the voice message totext. Alternatively, the electronic message may be sent from thepotential sender, but references an approved sender on the recipient'slist. It is envisioned that other types of references to a potentialsender may be embodied in the electronic message.

Based on this reference, the potential sender is deemed trustworthy andplaced on the list of approved senders associated with the recipient atstep 36. In one embodiment, the potential sender is placed on the listafter a single reference. In another embodiment, the potential sender isplaced on the list after a series of references which meet somespecified criteria. For example, references to the potential sender aremade in multiple messages from the same approved sender or one or morereferences to the potential sender are made in messages from differentapproved senders. It is readily understood that other criteria arewithin the scope of the present invention.

After a defined period of time, the potential sender may be removed fromthe list of approved senders as shown at step 38. To do so, anexpiration date may be associated with each of the entries on the listof approved senders. In an exemplary embodiment, the window would have abase length (e.g., one month) where once a person gets added to thelist, the expiration date is set to the length of that window in thefuture. Each time the added recipient interacts with the sender, thewindow is extended, i.e., set to a new expiration date one length ofthat window ahead of the last interaction. In this way, continuedinteraction is allowed, and a person can stay on the list as long as theinteraction continues. What constitutes interaction, may have differentinterpretations (configurable by the recipient). For example, it mightmean simply ‘an email is received from the sender’ or something moresophisticated like ‘the recipient sent an email in response to an emailreceived from the sender’. This latter definition prevents a sender frompaying once then repeatedly sending new emails to keep the window fromexpiring.

In addition, the length of this window can also be a function of theinteractions. If you have a very dense (timewise) set of interactions(you correspond a lot in a short period of time), then the length of thewindow can be elogated such that the person can go longer in timewithout contacting you before their whitelist entry expires. Someone youcorrespond with very frequently, such as family, will end up with verylong windows, and people who you correspond with infrequently will havefairly short windows. Stated generally, the interaction history(content, messages, and timing), and other information available to therecipient or recipient server can serve as the input to a policy whichdecides window length.

In another aspect of the present invention, the economic bond mechanismdescribed above may be used to solicit electronic messages by anintended recipient. The underlying principle is the use of a monetarybond posted to a third party in advance of a request for information.Since the reputation of the parties is unknown, the presence of areputable third party facilitates exchange by reducing perceived risk.This creates the possibility for larger markets or for the existence ofmarkets that would not otherwise exist. Again, this technique extends toother types of electronic communications.

Information flow is essential to knowledge management and effectivedecision making. To this end, a system is described that facilitates theexchange of valuable information, not just blocking of unwantedinformation such as spam. The class of information good for which thisdesign is targeted contains information products that are commonlycustomized or created specifically for a particular solicitor based uponrequirements that the solicitor states in advance. Such goods may bereferred to as “ad-hoc” information goods. The solicitor's requirementscould be as simple as the statement of a question for which they want ananswer or may be more elaborate and could be represented, for example,in a detailed description with appropriate background and includereferences to outside information, meta-information, or supporting data.The production of the ad-hoc good may be from scratch, solely due to thesolicitation of a potential solicitor, or it may be produced by editing,merging, or modification of one or more documents which pre-exist thesolicitation. Either way, the cost of customization is expected to behigh enough that a producer of the information product would not bewilling to undertake production and transmit the finished good withoutadvance payment or some assurance that they will later receiveappropriate compensation.

Prior to describing an exemplary embodiment, a few pertinent definitionsare set forth. A solicitor is a person or organization seeking ad-hocinformation. A respondent is a person or organization who responds to asolicitation by producing or customizing information being requested. Anescrow service is a third party who will hold funds in behalf of theprimary parties in an exchange (i.e., solicitor and respondent) andreleases the funds to one or the other party under certaincircumstances. A solicitor's financial agent (SFA) is an agent in theemploy of or under administrative control of the solicitor whose primarypurpose is to be caretaker of a solicitor's funds. The SFA must be ableto both send and receive funds in the currency of the marketplace to andfrom the other participants. Similarly, the respondent's financial agentis the caretaker of a respondent's funds.

A marketplace operator is an intermediary that provides several servicesto the other parties. For instances, the marketplace operatorfacilitates discovery of parties (sellers find buyers, buyers findsellers), maintains transaction records, assigns and manages identitiesand authentication of participating parties, and provides tools toprimary parties to facilitate negotiation of the terms of exchange.Lastly, an underwriter is a financial institution that underwrites theelectronically represented currency, essentially by guaranteeing itsexchange value.

The principal risk to a solicitor is that he or she will be required topay for a low quality good. Quality of good is addressed by requiringthe solicitor to pay only when certain conditions are met. For example,the market operator could require payment from solicitor when at least rdifferent respondents submit a response (e.g. a candidate good). Theminimum r can be set by the market operator or by the solicitor at thetime a solicitation is posted to the marketplace. The result of such apolicy is the solicitor can be assured that he will be required to payonly if there is sufficient competition. To create the incentive forcreation of a quality good in response to the solicitation, thesolicitor, if required to pay, will have the choice as to whichrespondent actually receives the payment. Respondents know that ifsufficient competition exists, at least one of them will be paid. Whichone is paid depends on how the solicitor judges the usefulness of eachof the candidate responses.

Although a solicitor is required to pay at or above r, they may stilloptionally pay for a good response when r is not reached. Whether or notsolicitors have chosen to reward respondents under the condition of lessthan required competition can be a displayed component of a solicitor'sreputation, made available to potential respondents when they review thesolicitation. A respondent might choose to take the risk of undertakingthe creation of a candidate response even when he suspects that thesolicitation will not generate the specified number r of requiredresponses if the solicitor has a reputation for paying regardless.

In contrast, the risk to a respondent is uncompensated effort to createthe good, or the risk of non-payment. Risks to respondents are reducedin several additional ways. If the solicitor is required to post a bondbefore a request in made, the solicitation can be seen by respondentsand the market operator enforces release of the bond from escrowaccording to known conditions, respondents have more information aboutthe exchange outcome and are assured that compensation will be paid. Itis also envisioned that the market operator may employ a reputationsystem for evaluating solicitors. Since solicitor reputation for paying(and under what criteria) is collected and displayed by the marketoperator, it is easily observable by a respondent before undertakingproduct creation, thereby further reducing the risk of respondents.

Optionally, the solicitor may not be required to post a bond in advance.Should he agree to post a bond, the rules of release of the bond stillapply. Not posting a bond may increase perceived risk to respondents,but there may exist circumstances where a respondent is willing toaccept this.

Product quality is addressed is at least two ways. First, since thesolicitor may not be required to pay unless sufficient competitionexists and respondents compete against each other for any payment, theyhave the incentive to create a product of high quality, or at least ofhigher quality than that of any of the other respondents. Second, thereduction of risk due to the bond and market operator regulation of themarket should increase the number of potential respondents willing toparticipate.

Referring to FIG. 3, a further description is provided as to how themarketplace may work, and the typical order in which communication andexchange between parties occurs. It is readily understood that otherimplementations and/or communication exchanges between the parties mayoccur within the broader aspects of the present invention.

First, a solicitor 42 posts a request at step 52 for an ad-hocinformation product to the marketplace. This message request or productrequest specifies a topic of interest to the solicitor and the terms ofpayment. Although the request may include other types of information,the market operator may restrict the variety of terms to simplifyparticipant decision-making and reduce their costs. The market operator44 publishes the request where respondents 46 with the appropriateexpertise can easily find it (the process of selecting an appropriatelocation may be aided by information provided by the solicitor).

To the solicitor 42, the market operator 44 furnishes a receipt of theposting with a reference identifier for the exchange, specification ofthe escrow agent 48, and the identity of a transaction-specific bondholding account. Using this information, the solicitor 42 sendsnotification to their financial agent 43 as indicated at 54 authorizingthe posting of a bond to the bond holding account at the escrow service.The SFA 43 in turn transfers the appropriate funds to the escrow agent48 at step 56, passing along the reference identifier.

At step 58, the escrow agent 48 sends notification to the marketoperator 44 that the bond has been posted (is held in escrow) and is ofa valid currency. The market operator 44 indicates, in close proximityto the original solicitation (so that potential respondents can see),the status of the bond as ‘posted’. It is also envisioned that themarket operator may provide the escrow function such that the bond isposted directly with the marker operator.

In response to the request, one or more respondents may submit candidateproducts at step 60 to the market operator. Submission are made inelectronic form and then published in an area where they can be read bythe solicitor. Submissions may be made available for review by otherrespondents and/or potential respondents. It is further envisioned thatrespondents may revise their submissions upon reviewing the submissionsmade by others and this history of revisions is also made available forreview by the various parties.

Moreover, the responsiveness of the submissions may verified by themarket operator. In particular, the content of a submission is assessedin relation to the topic specified by the solicitor.Software-implemented algorithms for determining and correlating thecontent of electronic documents are readily known in the art and may beused to implement this feature of the present invention.

The solicitor 42 reviews the responses at step 62. If required to pay orif the solicitor voluntarily decides to pay, the solicitor 42 indicatesto the market operator 44 which of the respondents 46 should receivepayment (e.g. the value of the posted bond or a voluntary payment of thesolicitor's choice). It is envisioned that the solicitor may select morethan one of the respondents, including allocating the bond amongst allof the respondents. Alternatively, it is envisioned that the recipientof the bond may be selected either randomly or in accordance with adefined criteria (e.g., order of receipt) by the market operator. In thecase where the solicitor posted a bond in escrow, the market operatorsends notification to the escrow service, indicating which of therespondents should receive the payment. The escrow agent releases thebond held in escrow and transfers its value to the appropriaterespondent financial agent(s).

In an alternative embodiment, respondents may be required to post a bondwith the market operator (or an escrow agent) before their submissionswill be considered by the solicitor. Thus, the bond posted by therespondents is in addition to the bond posted by the solicitor. Inoperation, the market operator would likely release the solicitor's bondto designated respondents before claiming any bonds posted by therespondents. Although bonds may be claimed from all of the respondents,the market operator preferably collect bonds only from respondents whosesubmissions were deemed non-responsive to the solicitor's request. Forexample, respondents who did not receive at least a portion of thesolicitor's bond are deemed to have been non-responsive, although othercriteria for assessing non-responsiveness are also envisioned.

Respondents may also post bonds of varying amounts, thereby signalingtheir interest to the solicitor. To the extent that the solicitor electsto consider submissions only from a subset of the respondents, the bondamount may be used to select the subset. For example, only submissionsassociated with the highest n bids may be considered by the solicitor.In this example, bonds are not claimed from respondents whosesubmissions were considered, but is collected from the remainingrespondents. To the extent that bonds are collected from all of therespondents, the solicitor may collects an amount from respondent whosesubmissions were considered which is equal to the amount posted by thefirst losing bid. In any of these examples, the solicitor preferablydoes not collect an amount from the respondents which exceeds the amountposted by the solicitor.

The description of the invention is merely exemplary in nature and,thus, variations that do not depart from the gist of the invention areintended to be within the scope of the invention. Such variations arenot to be regarded as a departure from the spirit and scope of theinvention.

1. A method for managing a list of approved senders in an electronicmessage system, comprising: maintaining a list of approved sendersassociated with a recipient; receiving an electronic message intendedfor the recipient wherein the electronic message references a senderresiding on the list of approved senders and at least one potentialsender whom is not on the list of approved senders; and placing thepotential sender on the list of approved senders associated with therecipient.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the electronic message wassent by the sender on the list of approved senders.
 3. The method ofclaim 1 wherein the potential sender is copied on the electronic messagereceived by the recipient.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein thepotential sender is identified in a body of the electronic message. 5.The method of claim 1 wherein the electronic message was sent by thepotential sender and the sender on the list of approved senders iseither copied of the electronic message or identified in the body of theelectronic message.
 6. The method of claim 1 further comprises removingthe potential sender from the list of approved senders after apredefined period of time.
 7. The method of claim 6 further comprisesextending the predefined period of time upon further interaction betweenthe recipient and the potential sender.
 8. The method of claim 7 whereinthe further interaction is further defined as at least one of anelectronic message received by the recipient from the potential senderand an electronic message sent by the recipient to the potential sender.9. The method of claim 1 further comprises removing the potential senderfrom the list of approved senders after a period of time, where theperiod of time is determined as a function of an amount of interactionbetween the recipient and the potential sender.
 10. A method forregulating delivery of electronic messages to a recipient in aelectronic messaging system, comprising: maintaining a list of approvedsenders associated with a recipient; demanding a bond to be placed intoescrow for delivery of an electronic message sent by a sender not on thelist of approved sender; receiving an electronic message intended forthe recipient and sent by a sender residing on the list of approvedsenders, where the electronic message references a potential sender whomis not on the list of approved senders; and placing the potential senderon the list of approved senders associated with the recipient.
 11. Themethod of claim 10 further comprises delivering a subsequent electronicmessage sent by the potential sender to the recipient.
 12. The method ofclaim 10 further comprises delivering a different electronic message tothe recipient when the sender of the different electronic message is onthe list of approved senders.
 13. The method of claim 10 furthercomprises delivering a different electronic message to the recipientwhen the sender pays the demanded fee to an escrow agent.
 14. The methodof claim 10 further comprises notifying an escrow agent of the receiptof an electronic message from a sender not on the list of approvedsenders, and delivering the electronic message to the recipient uponconfirming payment of demanded bond to the escrow agent.
 15. The methodof claim 10 wherein the potential sender is either copied on theelectronic message received by the recipient or identified in a body ofthe electronic message.
 16. The method of claim 10 further comprisesremoving the potential sender from the list of approved senders after apredefined period of time.
 17. The method of claim 16 further comprisesextending the period of time upon further interaction between therecipient and the potential sender.
 18. The method of claim 17 whereinthe further interaction is further defined as at least one of anelectronic message received by the recipient from the potential senderand an electronic message sent by the recipient to the potential sender.19. The method of claim 10 further comprises removing the potentialsender from the list of approved senders after a period of time, wherethe period of time is determined as a function of an amount ofinteraction between the recipient and the potential sender.
 20. A methodfor soliciting electronic messages by a solicitor over a computernetwork, comprising: posting a request for electronic messages with anmarket operator, the message request specifies a topic of interest tothe solicitor and includes a bond for payment to at least one respondentof an electronic message sent in response to the message request;sending, in response to the message request, at least one electronicmessage from a respondent to the solicitor; and releasing the bond fromthe market operator to the respondent subsequent to the receipt of theelectronic message by the solicitor.
 21. The method of claim 20 furthercomprises selecting one electronic message from a plurality ofelectronic messages received in response to the message request, andreleasing the bond to the respondent of the selected electronic message.22. The method of claim 21 wherein the one electronic message isselected by either the solicitor or the market operator.
 23. The methodof claim 20 wherein the step of posting a message request furtherincludes specifying a criterion by which the bond is to be released bythe market operator.
 24. The method of claim 20 further comprisesassessing content of an electronic message in relation to the topicspecified in the message request and releasing the bond to therespondent when the content of the electronic message correlates to thetopic.
 25. The method of claim 20 wherein the bond is released by themarket operator after a specified period of time or a specified numberof electronic messages have been received by the solicitor in responseto the message request.
 26. The method of claim 20 wherein the step ofreleasing the bond further comprises allocating the bond amongst aplurality of respondents whom sent electronic messages in response tothe message request.
 27. The method of claim 20 further comprisesposting the request for electronic messages with the market operator andposting the bond with an escrow agent independent from the marketoperator.
 28. A method for brokering exchanges of electronic messagesover a computer network through the use of an escrow agent, comprising:receiving a request for electronic messages from an intended solicitor,the message request specifies a topic of interest to the solicitor andincludes a bond for payment to at least one respondent of an electronicmessage sent in response to the message request; monitoring receipt ofat least one electronic message sent from a respondent to the solicitorin response to the message request; and releasing the bond to therespondent subsequent to the receipt of the electronic message by thesolicitor.
 29. The method of claim 28 further comprises receiving aplurality of electronic messages in response to the message request andreleasing the bond to the respondent of an electronic message selectedby the solicitor.
 30. The method of claim 28 wherein the message requestfurther includes specifying a criterion by which the bond is to bereleased.
 31. The method of claim 28 further comprises assessing contentof an electronic message in relation to the topic specified in themessage request and releasing the bond to the respondent when thecontent of the electronic message correlates to the topic.
 32. Themethod of claim 28 further comprises releasing the bond after either aspecified period of time or a specified number of electronic messageshave been received by the solicitor in response to the message request.